Common Kingfisher

[Wendy Kates]

I took this image in a marshy area in northern Israel. I'd like your input on both the crop and the background. I cropped it to include the foliage fanning out on the right side of the image, because I thought it provides, to some extent, a sense of how small this species is. But I'm wondering if it detracts attention from the kingfisher? Also, I wondered if I should blur the background...is it too distracting?

Canon 7D, 300mm f/4 lens with 1.4 extender, f 5.6, 1/320s, ISO 200

[Sandy Witvoet]

Hi Wendy! What a way cool bird! Details are great! I wouldn't blur the BG much more, but it seems too bright? ....if you could subdue the bright greens, that may help...Really love your comp! TFS!

[Diane Miller]

Very nice shot!! The crop works for me. I don't know the bird but he (she?) gives the impression of an overgrown hummingbird, so you succeeded in showing the diminutive size.

Sandy has a good idea about the brightness in the BG. The bright greens are mostly yellows, and if that subdues the color in the bird, it will be easy to mask it out there. (Use an adjustment layer to facilitate masking.)

Trying to blur a BG behind a sharp subject isn't easy. If you just select the BG (select the bird and inverse) and do a blur, some of the bird will slop over onto the BG. To get the cleanest edge you'd need to copy the bird to a separate layer and then clone some of the BG into the edges of the bird on the layer you're going to blur. But you wouldn't want to blur much, so you may not see the edge problem with just a slight blur.

BTW -- you don't have an embedded profile, but it looks like you did convert to sRGB -- that's the most important part.

[Wendy Kates]

Thanks, Sandy and Diane, for your feedback. My photoshop skills are relatively primitive. I use adjustment layers frequently, but I'm not sure of the settings to use (brush size, hardness, etc) to clone part of the BG into the edges of the bird. Also, I did convert to sRGB when I "Saved for web" in PS. Should I be doing something in addition to created an embedded profile?

[Diane Miller]

Hi Wendy,

In the Convert to Web dialog there is a checkbox to convert to sRGB and another one to embed the profile. They are two different steps. Embedding should be just done without bothering you -- the choice not to embed it dates back to about 1940 when not adding 3% to a file size was important, and nobody knew anything about color management anyway. There is no reason not to embed it now and at the very least the box should be checked by default. Just check both and that dialog will do everything for you. No need to flatten first or resize unless you want to sharpen after resizing -- which is a good idea, but you can also sharpen the JPEG.

As to the cloning brush, it's just whatever size and hardness will fit the area. Usually the softest setting is best. You can see what is working by experiment and back out in the History panel if if's not doing a good job.

The hardest part will be selecting the bird well. Topaz ReMask is excellent and easy to use, but far from intuitive. They have a good tutorial.

[Dennis Bishop]

. . . I cropped it to include the foliage fanning out on the right side of the image, because I thought it provides, to some extent, a sense of how small this species is. But I'm wondering if it detracts attention from the kingfisher? . . .

I find the fanned-out foliage only a little distracting. If you want to make it less so, flipping the image horizontally would be good for two reasons. It would make the foliage less distracting because that's where the viewer's eye probably enters the picture, and the eye naturally goes to the kingfisher because of where it is as well as because it stands out well from the background. The other thing flipping does is point the diagonal from the stem in a stronger orientation (upper left to lower right). If the eye does return to the foliage, it would immediately be directed back to the bird by the diagonal.

[Sandy Witvoet]

RP is good... actually I prefer the OP... non-mirrored image. Maybe it's just me, but I look upper left first, then moving to lower right (Kind of like reading a newspaper headline, then dropping over to the "side line" if I feel like it) ....well, which is pretty much what Dennis said...but I'm still wandering back to the fanned foliage too much....Which may be because it is quite bright, even tho the bird is beautifully iridescent.... the "blues" in the bird may be visually "receding" compared to the bright greens (and a bit of yellow) in the "fan". Maybe the Mirror would work better with a bit more off the top and the left side?
Still, LOVE this bird!:S3:

[Wendy Kates]

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for your input. I understand the compositional principle you are describing, but like Sandy, I think I prefer the original orientation. I toned down the greens (per previous advice), but even with the toned-down background (which I did not repost), my eye goes immediately to the foliage in the flipped image, whereas in the original version, my eyes go immediately to the bird. So I think I'll stick with the original.

Happy Thanksgiving!

--Wendy